The
2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York City
March 2-4 was attended by an impressive list of over 500 people. The
conference was organized by the Heartland Institute of Chicago and
co-sponsored by dozens of organizations. Also participating were over
leading 100 scientists in the climate scientific debate. These scientists
made it abundantly clear with hard scientific evidence that greenhouse
gases are not the main drivers of global warming. In other words,
human activities do not cause warming and economy-destroying laws
are not needed.

Dr.
Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, and founder and president
of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, provided very convincing
evidence that CO2 is not playing a significant role in planetary warming.
Citing a paper he co-authored in the December 2007 issue of the International
Journal of Climatology, Dr. Singer informed the audience that
the physics of CO2-driven global warming require that the mid-troposphere
warm faster than the surface by 2-3oC. Consequently, all global warming
models have this relationship built into them (Figure 1).

Figure
1. Greenhouse-model-predicted temperature
trends versus latitude and altitude. Note the increased temperature
trends in the tropical mid-troposphere, in agreement also with the
IPCC result [IPCC-AR4 2007.

However,
real-world temperature measurements do not show this predicted warming
– at all! (Figure 2) This stunning evidence carries far reaching ramifications.
Although it totally discredits CO2 driven warming, at least as it
is presently theorized, global warming alarmists and the highly politicized
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refuse to even
consider it. When cornered on the subject, they have said that evidence
does support their theory. In doing so, the alarmists admit they are
politically motivated, and will do or say anything to protect their
agenda at the complete sacrifice of true science.

This
and far more hard evidence is presented in a new document released
at the meeting called “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”
The document, released at the conference as a “Summary for Policymakers,”
provides overwhelming scientific evidence that man is not responsible
for global warming. Yet, it is written in a way that can be understood
by the average person. The document was written by the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group of 23 leading
scientists on climate change from 15 nations, and represents the best
summary of current research on the subject. You can
download it here.

There
were a variety of theories presented during the conference on what
did cause global warming – all of them involving various aspects of
an increasingly active sun and ocean temperature oscillations like
El Niño vs. La Niña. Most scientists agreed the actual warming probably
involves many, if not all these mechanisms. Tragically, however, very
little research money is spent refining these theories.

In
spite of the very reasoned and convincing evidence presented by the
scientists at the convention, the mainline press denigrated and demeaned
their presentations. Andy Revkin of the New
York Times focused on minor disagreements between the scientists,
rather than the strong scientific evidence that CO2 does not play
a significant role in warming. To the overwhelming evidence, Revkin
merely said that the scientists were trying “hard to prove that they
had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming
the world in potentially disruptive ways.” Rather than critiquing
the science presented, Revkin attacked the sponsor saying that the
Heartland Institute is “a Chicago group whose antiregulatory philosophy
has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries
and conservative donors.” He failed to mention that Heartland receives
less than 7 percent of its budget from these “various industries.”
Nor, did he say that conservative institutions working on climate
change are outspent by at least 7 to 1 by environmental groups that
blame CO2 and advocate draconian regulations.

The
Washington Post was only slightly better. Juliet
Eilperin lamented that “the meeting represented a sort of global
warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed” – a
polite way of saying that the scientists opposed everything that everybody
knows is true. She emphasized that the NIPCC was only written by 23
authors, some of them not scientists, while the UN’s IPCC “enlisted
several hundred scientists from a 100 nations.” She fails to mention
that many of the “hundred scientists” allegedly endorsing the IPCC’s
report actually attended the New York conference and called the IPCC
report a scam. Ironically, AP’s Seth Borenstein, a strong proponent
of man-caused global warming, acknowledged in an April 9, 2007 article
that only 52 scientists actually wrote the UN’s highly political IPCC
report, guided by a host of “diplomats.” While Borenstein called the
non-scientists diplomats, most people would call them bureaucrats.

Actually,
the so-called consensus of hundreds of scientists on the IPCC report
is much worse than that. An analysis
released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process
by Australian climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the
UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." Only a few of the “hundreds”
are actually involved in the UN’s peer-review process. Says
McLean, “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very
much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there
is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among
the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter
with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.”

Putting
this into perspective, at most 52 scientists wrote the IPPC’s report,
of which only 4 or 5 endorsed its highly politicized findings. Yet,
the IPCC repeatedly gives the impression that hundreds, if not thousands
of scientists endorse their conclusions. This is completely false.
While many other scientists do endorse it, it is certainly not a consensus.
Compared to this, every one of the 23 NIPCC’s scientists and economists
who authored the report released at the conference endorsed it. Likewise,
most, if not all, the 100 scientists at the conference endorsed the
NIPCC’s conclusions.

No
one should be surprised that the mainstream press got it completely
wrong – again. After all, if they wrote that the polar bear, which
is being considered for listing as an endangered species, is experiencing
record high populations and is in fact not in danger from global warming,
the reporters would suffer the scorn of their environmentalist friends
and the possible wrath of their editors. If they wrote that maybe,
just maybe all these scientists at the March Climate Change meeting
in New York were right, it would shatter the use of global warming
as a justification for global governance, as former French President,
Jacque Chirac proclaimed to the world in 2000 during the Framework
Convention on Climate Change’s COP 6 meeting. “For the first time,
humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance…to
organise our collective sovereignty over this planet.”

There
was an undercurrent during the conference about the sun that was hinted
at during many of the talks. The sun should have entered Solar Cycle
24 in 2007, when it becomes much more active, but is so far dead quiet.
This hasn’t been seen since the 17th and 18th centuries during what
is called the little ice age. The temperature dropped several degrees
during that time and was accompanied by crop losses, famine and pestilence.
Thankfully, no one expects it to get that bad, but we could be entering
another cooling cycle, like what occurred between 1945 and 1975. Both
the southern and northern hemisphere’s have had the coldest winter
in decades, and in some regions this winter has broken all records.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Although
it is far too early to say with any certainty what will happen, the
prospect terrifies the global warming alarmists. They have long known
that it could happen and is probably behind why the alarmists have changed
the name from man-caused global warming to man-caused climate change
for the past several years. That way, no matter what happens, the alarmists
can try to convince the world that man is still at the root of the problem
and we must turn to global governance to save the world. Hopefully,
the world will see through the scam.

Order Michael Coffman's
Book
"The Birth of World Government"
Call 1-800-955-0116

Dr. Michael Coffman is CEO of Sovereignty International.
He has a Ph.D. in ecosystems analysis and has taught in universities in
ecology, ecosystems, forest management, and meteorology as well as conducted
research in these areas. He led a multimillion dollar research effort
into the effects of global warming on our nation's ecosystems in the late
1980s and 1990s before leaving that position to start his consulting firm,
Environmental Perspectives, Inc. and create Sovereignty International
to expose the global agenda.

No
one should be surprised that the mainstream press got it completely wrong
– again. After all, if they wrote that the polar bear, which is being
considered for listing as an endangered species, is experiencing record
high populations and is in fact not in danger from global warming, the
reporters would suffer the scorn of their environmentalist friends...